Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice. I'm surprised you just seemed to figure this out.

So if it wasn't a sacrifice, what was it?

The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the main riddles in the Gospel. The meaning is completely hidden from your type of mindset. And it's not a discussion I'm going to have in this forum. I'm just laughing at your newfound revelation.

Egor, you're getting more and more useless as time goes on. Now your contribution (I use the word lightly) is that the OP is wrong but you're not going to discuss why.

Great, thanks for the tip.

You're right about one thing. The crucifixion story is a riddle all right. The actual riddle is why anybody could believe such a steaming pile of nonsense in the first place. I mean, really, everyone is a sinner so god manufactures a son and sends him to earth then takes him back to heaven so we can all be forgiven for our sins. Along the way, a few of the sinners get to kick the crap out of god's son for no particular reason but somehow that helps god forgive us all. What nonsense.

There's your riddle.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

Egor has given up on logic. This may sound bad, but I actually think he's on the path to deconversion again. He's going to build up his new theology on feeling and assertion rather than logic. But eventually logic will reassert itself in his mind and it will all come crumbling down. I went through a stage like that too, it didn't last long. I really think this man is going to give up these delusions some day.

Oh, I'm sure you're right. His history of waffling and his veritable addiction to this forum as if he craves our approval while fearing to give up his beliefs, it all points to a long and (for him) painful deconversion. He's terrified of it and fighting it so hard that he's even made up his own religion rather than face the truth of his deconversion, but sooner or later he'll come around.

Or go insane fighting his own mind.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

(08-02-2013 01:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote: Then would adding an additional Premise where I more strictly define Value help? So instead of arguing over those 3 points, you could focus it all into 1, and then have a debate over the use or definition of Value in context.

No, you need to agree upon the definitions of words like that prior to the debate. Allow me to clarify my point using an example.

Note: You are A; your opponent is T.

A: Let's argue about whether or not Jesus sacrifice was worth anything.
T: Sure. I'd say you present your argument first and then I'll respond to it.
A: My argument is [insert your current argument here].
T: Well, I don't agree with your definition of X, so I don't think that argument is sound.

Your opponent can legitimately dismiss your argument in this scenario because you didn't define the ambiguous term you were going to use in your argument in advance. Here is how your approach should look like instead:

A: Let's argue about whether or not Jesus sacrifice was worth anything.
T: Sure. I'd say you present your argument first and then I'll respond to it.
A: Before I do that, we need to agree upon the definition of term X. I propose that it means Y.

At this point, T can either agree with or reject your definition of X. If he does the latter, you'll have to discuss the alternatives with him and figure out whether or not both of you are able to agree on a definition that doesn't render your argument null and void. In case you are unable to do that, you have pretty much no other option other than agreeing to disagree.

But I digress... If T does the the former, you can continue the way you did before.

If T dismisses your argument based on the definition of X this time, all you need to do is point out that this is an intellectually dishonest move.

T: Well, I don't agree with your definition of X, so I don't think that argument is sound.
A: We agreed upon the definition of X beforehand, so you're being intellectually dishonest by rejecting the definition now that I've presented my argument.

For obvious reasons, the above example is an idealization.

(08-02-2013 01:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote: Regardless, I'll have to give this more thought, thanks.

The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the main riddles in the Gospel. The meaning is completely hidden from your type of mindset. And it's not a discussion I'm going to have in this forum. I'm just laughing at your newfound revelation.

Ah yes. The priests (and bishops), and only the initiated, (just as in Mark), are the only ones with the "secret knowledge". It's a common recurring theme in the Christian cult. A good job, if you posess the knowledge, and they need to pay you for it. Jesus died, because, in the Pax Romana, (Rome was occupying Jerusalem at the time), there was a standing Roman order to execute trouble makers. He caused a ruckus in the temple, in a city completely dependant on, and devoted to the temple based economy, the fees to the priests, the money changers that were needed to change Roman coinage into the acceptable Jewish currency, for a fee, to pay for temple based sacrificial/ritual things, the places which offered ritual bathing, (for more fees), fees for the actual animals, fees to raise the animals, fees to keep the animals, fees to the priests to "do" the sacrifice, fees from the hoards of visitors who had to stay over-night, fees to feed them, and as the Yahwist (Jerusalem) priests had engineered that politically, Jerusalem was decreed to be the ONLY acceptable worship site, (which historically it had not always been). There was no trial, as he was arrested on Passover weekend, and Jews NEVER had trials on that weekend, and Roman aristocrats would NEVER have been involved with a trial of a Gallilean peasant nobody. The Sanhedrin never met at night, and was never called into assembly on Passover weekend, ever. Not once, unless it was a national emergencg. Tthere is no "mystery" about Jebus' death. He got what he asked for, (summary execution), and LATER, the myth and cult about him arose, as his followers wanted to keep his cult/memory going.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

I absolutely love that you put this in logical terms, and I wish I could see every argument made this way.

I hate to admit that it isn't entirely valid. You claim that your second conclusion is drawn from your first, but it isn't; the first conclusion is merely that a "sacrifice" that isn't by definition a sacrifice is without value, not that death is not a sacrifice. But even if you said that you drew your conclusion that death isn't a sacrifice with the bolstering argument that you provided below, it still wouldn't be correct. You're using a weasel word by calling it a "transition"... that isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with sacrifice. Even if there were an afterlife, you would have to give up your life for it. Sure, you'd get a different life in trade, but that doesn't make it "not a sacrifice". For example, if you gave up your Lamborghini to drive a bicycle, you'd be making a sacrifice despite getting something in trade -- the transition from one vehicle to another is still a sacrifice because you gave up value in getting something worth less for something worth more. I think your point can still be made (after all, the afterlife is a trade-up, isn't it?) but not in its current form.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the main riddles in the Gospel. The meaning is completely hidden from your type of mindset. And it's not a discussion I'm going to have in this forum. I'm just laughing at your newfound revelation.

Isn't the bible meant to be understood by all of those who read it? Would it be fair for God to hide its meaning from anyone, especially since eternal life hangs in the balance? Wouldn't it be even more important for a non-believer to understand the bible than someone who is already "saved"?

And why are you so sure that it's due to one's mindset when considering that most Christians easily spot Jesus' death as a sacrifice? Surely their "mindset" isn't getting in the way of bible interpretation. Or maybe when you see the phrase "Lamb of God" you think, "Oh, Jesus must need protection and guidance like a typical lamb" rather than "Oh, they must be making a reference to the same thing you see whenever the bible speaks about lambs (blood sacrifice)".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the main riddles in the Gospel. The meaning is completely hidden from your type of mindset. And it's not a discussion I'm going to have in this forum. I'm just laughing at your newfound revelation.

Ah yes. The priests (and bishops), and only the initiated, (just as in Mark), are the only ones with the "secret knowledge". It's a common recurring theme in the Christian cult.
Jesus died, because, in the Pax Romana, there was a standing order to execute trouble makers. He caused a ruckus in the temple, in a city completely dependant on, and devoted to the temple based economy, the fees to the priests, the money changers that were needed to change Roman coinage into the acceptable Jewish currency, for a fee, to pay for temple based sacrificial/ritual things, the places which offered ritual bathing, (for more fees), fees for the actual animals, fees to raise the animals, fees to keep the animals, fees to the priests to "do" the sacrifice, fees from the hoards of visitors who had to stay over-night, fees to feed them, and as the Yahwist (Jerusalem) priests had engineered that politically, Jerusalem was decreed to be the ONLY acceptable worship site, (which historically it had not always been). There was no trial, as he was arrested on Passover weekend, and Jews NEVER had trials on that weekend, and Roman aristocrats would NEVER have been involved with a trial of a Gallilean peasant nobody. So there is no "mystery" about Jebus' death. He got what he asked for, (summary execution), and LATER, the myth and cult about him arose, as his followers wanted to keep his cult/memory going.

Great stuff Bucky. I'm going to pinch the first half of this for my project....thanks.

Paul invented the concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Plenty of people have since accepted
this peculiar idea. Why?

Having the son of God become human, and free the faithful from the guilt and consequences of their sins was an attractive story for a credulous congregation. It meant God was no longer a distant deity, but someone more like them, with whom they could identify. Christ became an ally, a great guy, and everyone’s best friend. He would personally shoulder your punishment, provided you believed in him. Do that, and Paul promised you a free pass to salvation.

Churches have since saturated people’s minds with this plan; today’s evangelical Christians, in particular, rarely question it. This is why many of them insist on believing in Jesus; so that sins can be forgiven and entry into heaven attained.

Yet the argument is irrational. Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why would anyone agree with Paul’s delusions about sin? (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...atonement/ )